Should You Kill the Fat Man?

[rob77dp]

Think about a newborn child. This child has been born with no senses at all. He can not feel, hear, taste, smell or see. We are aware of his existence but the true question is...

Does the child know of his own existence?

What is the scope and character of the moral significance of awareness in the present of your own existence?
(no need to limit this to newborn children if awareness is the factor you are examining)

Let me ask you a question then. How do you know you exist? What makes you aware of your existence?

Well "I think therefore I am" implies "I think I think therefore I know I am". So I will return the question post clarification as:

What is the scope and character of the moral significance of metacognition (especially in comparison to various kinds of potential for metacognition)?
Consider John Smith. John is asleep 33% of the time. While asleep John is not aware of their existence but when awake is aware of their existence.

Are we approaching the asking of the question:

If a person existed absent the presence of any other human beings then does the person really exist?

What about:
- Can a person that does not exist be murdered?
- Is a person who murders another sleeping person guilty of murder?

That is not the direction I was going. The initial question in this quote tree asked if a newborn was aware of its own existence. So I was asking "why/how would it matter?" while also making the question more generic to include more cases and discharge possible kneejerk arguments

Although it is in the neighborhood of "Is a person who kills another sleeping person guilty of murder?" (please forgive my pedantic precision here).

Hmmmm, fair. I don't think I directly addressed the question at the center of this quote pyramid...

Think about a newborn child. This child has been born with no senses at all. He can not feel, hear, taste, smell or see. We are aware of his existence but the true question is...

Does the child know of his own existence?

Possibly yes, but maybe no. PB - are you positing a scenario where a child is born with no senses or that children are generally born with no senses? I am reading it as in this one childbirth instance the child has been born with no senses. If you are meaning the latter - all children are born with no senses - then I would be compelled to begin the discussion with a statement that I disagree with the premise.

[ProBacon]

Think about a newborn child. This child has been born with no senses at all. He can not feel, hear, taste, smell or see. We are aware of his existence but the true question is...

Does the child know of his own existence?

What is the scope and character of the moral significance of awareness in the present of your own existence?
(no need to limit this to newborn children if awareness is the factor you are examining)

Let me ask you a question then. How do you know you exist? What makes you aware of your existence?

Well "I think therefore I am" implies "I think I think therefore I know I am". So I will return the question post clarification as:

What is the scope and character of the moral significance of metacognition (especially in comparison to various kinds of potential for metacognition)?
Consider John Smith. John is asleep 33% of the time. While asleep John is not aware of their existence but when awake is aware of their existence.

Are we approaching the asking of the question:

If a person existed absent the presence of any other human beings then does the person really exist?

What about:
- Can a person that does not exist be murdered?
- Is a person who murders another sleeping person guilty of murder?

That is not the direction I was going. The initial question in this quote tree asked if a newborn was aware of its own existence. So I was asking "why/how would it matter?" while also making the question more generic to include more cases and discharge possible kneejerk arguments

Although it is in the neighborhood of "Is a person who kills another sleeping person guilty of murder?" (please forgive my pedantic precision here).

Hmmmm, fair. I don't think I directly addressed the question at the center of this quote pyramid...

Think about a newborn child. This child has been born with no senses at all. He can not feel, hear, taste, smell or see. We are aware of his existence but the true question is...

Does the child know of his own existence?

Possibly yes, but maybe no. PB - are you positing a scenario where a child is born with no senses or that children are generally born with no senses? I am reading it as in this one childbirth instance the child has been born with no senses. If you are meaning the latter - all children are born with no senses - then I would be compelled to begin the discussion with a statement that I disagree with the premise.

This is a situation where it is only this child. And to raise another question... if the child has no senses then he has nothing to recall in his life to think about. So if he is thinking then what is he thinking about and if he is not thinking then how does he know he exists?

[rob77dp]

Think about a newborn child. This child has been born with no senses at all. He can not feel, hear, taste, smell or see. We are aware of his existence but the true question is...

Does the child know of his own existence?

What is the scope and character of the moral significance of awareness in the present of your own existence?
(no need to limit this to newborn children if awareness is the factor you are examining)

Let me ask you a question then. How do you know you exist? What makes you aware of your existence?

Well "I think therefore I am" implies "I think I think therefore I know I am". So I will return the question post clarification as:

What is the scope and character of the moral significance of metacognition (especially in comparison to various kinds of potential for metacognition)?
Consider John Smith. John is asleep 33% of the time. While asleep John is not aware of their existence but when awake is aware of their existence.

Are we approaching the asking of the question:

If a person existed absent the presence of any other human beings then does the person really exist?

What about:
- Can a person that does not exist be murdered?
- Is a person who murders another sleeping person guilty of murder?

That is not the direction I was going. The initial question in this quote tree asked if a newborn was aware of its own existence. So I was asking "why/how would it matter?" while also making the question more generic to include more cases and discharge possible kneejerk arguments

Although it is in the neighborhood of "Is a person who kills another sleeping person guilty of murder?" (please forgive my pedantic precision here).

Hmmmm, fair. I don't think I directly addressed the question at the center of this quote pyramid...

Think about a newborn child. This child has been born with no senses at all. He can not feel, hear, taste, smell or see. We are aware of his existence but the true question is...

Does the child know of his own existence?

Possibly yes, but maybe no. PB - are you positing a scenario where a child is born with no senses or that children are generally born with no senses? I am reading it as in this one childbirth instance the child has been born with no senses. If you are meaning the latter - all children are born with no senses - then I would be compelled to begin the discussion with a statement that I disagree with the premise.

This is a situation where it is only this child. And to raise another question... if the child has no senses then he has nothing to recall in his life to think about. So if he is thinking then what is he thinking about and if he is not thinking then how does he know he exists?

How is it we've come to know with certainty that the child has no senses??

[ProBacon]

What is Quality? What happens if we remove Quality from this world?

[Aves]

What do you mean by quality? If you mean the qualities of length and width, of hot and cold, well then we no longer exist in any sort of physical sense. If you mean quality as a comparison between "good" and "bad" states of being, then we no longer have valuation systems.

[ARTHANASIOS]

I am going to return this topic to its original purpose.

No, I won't turn the trolley.
No, I won't kill the innocent fat man.
No, I won't kill the criminal fat man.
No, I won't torture the criminal fat man.

Yes, I find the fact that the man is fat offensive and a racism towards fat men (and women).

[rob77dp]

I am going to return this topic to its original purpose.

No, I won't turn the trolley.
No, I won't kill the innocent fat man.
No, I won't kill the criminal fat man.
No, I won't torture the criminal fat man.

Yes, I find the fact that the man is fat offensive and a racism towards fat men (and women).

I am also "four No's" in response to the questions. ARTH, I find your final statement(s) a little... odd.

First, that is _not_ racism in any way, shape, or form -- 'fat' is not a race.
Secondly, if you read further into the questions and discussion about them on the site/link then you would learn that the reason the man is 'fat' is to lend additional credibility to the questioned party on the statement that his hitting the train/being in the path would stop the trolley.
Lastly, can you explain why you tag "(and women)" onto the end there? What about the fat man made you feel it was 'racist' (still not the right term/descriptor here) towards -women-? 0.o


1. No, the driver should not turn the train (but I would not consider it a moral obligation for Casey Jones in either choice).
2. No, Marty should -not- push the fat man onto the track (alternative methods or attempts to save the men on the track without killing other people should be sought first no matter how unlikely that seems to be successful).
3. No, Marty should -not- push the fat saboteur onto the track (we are not described in the scenario as having legal jurisdiction or appointed authority to apply knowledge of a case for purpose of reaching a verdict and summarily carrying out the verdict as a sole-source of process, jury, judge, and executioner).
4. No, the fat man should not be tortured (the exhaustion of available options and then the seeking and creation of new methods and processes by which without torture the authorities can legally and properly seek the discovery and disarmament of the bomb).

[ARTHANASIOS]

I know racism is used for racial differences but I used it like a metaphor.

I've read further about the reason the man is fat, but why the man is not a body-builder for example? Even a "man heavy enough to stop the train/track/ trolley/whatever" would do.

About women, I meant fat women.

[OldTrees]

I know racism is used for racial differences but I used it like a metaphor.

I've read further about the reason the man is fat, but why the man is not a body-builder for example? Even a "man heavy enough to stop the train/track/ trolley/whatever" would do.

Fat is functionally equivalent for the thought experiment and is both more concise and clearer. Nothing more is intended.

Although if the person being asked does see a morally relevant difference between the various members of the "person capable of involuntarily stopping the trolley at the cost of their own life" category, then one would want to either choose the least charged of those or to use multiple of those in order to examine the morally relevant detail they see.

[ProBacon]

What defines good and evil? What if one person's good is another persons evil?

[Aves]

What defines good and evil? What if one person's good is another persons evil?

Moral Relativism

[OldTrees]

What defines good and evil? What if one person's good is another persons evil?

I notice that you keep changing topics. Is there something you want to tell us?


Humans do not and cannot know what defines the concept people usually call by the name "good and evil". However that common usage describes something, existent or non existent, that is objective rather than relative. So what is moral for one person cannot be immoral for another person in a morally equivalent circumstance. Rephrased: a morally equivalent event cannot be moral for one and immoral for another.

However since "good and evil" are names we can ascribe to concepts, it should not surprise you that humans might mean completely different things by those three words & I am not just talking about differing beliefs about what the definition is. The concept second (or third depending on how pessimistic you are) most commonly meant by the words "good and evil" is best described by Aves' link to the philosophic theory of Moral Relativism or to the scientific observation of Cultural Relativism.

PS: I tried to balance precision and being concise in this post. Please keep that in mind given its broad reach (linguistics, meta ethics, epistemology, sociology, & politics).